Review Policy

The Journal implements the peer review institute. All incoming articles are subject to mandatory anonymous bilateral review. Reviewers specialize in the fields of reviewed articles. Reviews are stored in the editorial office for 5 years. Copies of reviews may be provided upon request to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.

Publication in the Journal is possible only after the following review procedure.

The author sends an article that meets the formal and stylistic requirements to the email address pa-journal@migsu.ranepa.ru.

Upon receipt by the editorial board, within a few days the manuscript is initially reviewed and checked for compliance with the subject and formal requirements of the publication. In case it does not comply with these criteria, the article is not accepted for consideration, and the corresponding notification is sent to the author.

If an article is accepted for review, it is sent to at least two reviewers for feedback. Reviewers may include members of the Editorial Board and the International Council, as well as external experts.

Reviews are done on an anonymous basis: the names of the author and reviewers are not disclosed to each other. The review is provided by each reviewer within two to four weeks. If the opinions of the two reviewers do not coincide, the editors find the third reviewer or decide independently, informing the author about the possible delay in the manuscript review process.

Reviewers in their comments express one of the following opinions:

  • (a) the article may be published in its current form,
  • (b) the article is absolutely not ready for publication.
  • (c) publication of the article is possible after some refinement.

In this case, the reviewers are guided by the following criteria:

  1. The contribution of the generalizations contained in the manuscript to the study of religion or any particular field / discipline of religious studies.
  2. The empirical contribution, i.e. how important and new the primary material, introduced into the scientific circulation in the manuscript, is.
  3. Are the sources relevant? Did the author miss important sources that could have been used for the article?
  4. The quality of research: design, methodology, analysis, interpretation.
  5. Structure of the article and clarity of presentation.
  6. The ratio of work within the relevant field: how familiar the author is with the current state of research.

Feedback – both negative and positive – is immediately sent to the author.

In case of unconditionally positive reviews – see above option “a” – the article is accepted in the “portfolio” of the Editorial Board for further publication.

If the reviewers are inclined to the third option (option “c”), the author is given four weeks to re-submit the article. After the submission of the improved article, the Editorial Board takes the final decision on the basis of how much of the criticism and comments of the reviewers are taken into account by the author.